Post by jackthegas on Jul 3, 2019 12:51:59 GMT

Great start again today but my word some of our batsmen lack savvy. Against Sri Lanka and Australia we lost wickets when it was obvious the captain had turned to his strike bowler, namely Malinga or Starc. Today Williamson left Boult on for an 8th over with in excess of 15 overs left in the innings. The smart move was for Buttler and Morgan to take a low risk approach for an over, look to take 5 or 6 (sensible anyway after losing a couple of quick wickets). Instead Buttler hauled out to long on and we're now in danger of collapsing.

In trying to get 360+ we may end up falling short of 300, which would leave New Zealand well in the game and England under huge pressure if New Zealand get off to a flyer.

Post by jackthegas on Jul 3, 2019 13:15:10 GMT

I've also read plenty about a lack of free-to-air TV exposure for this World Cup. That is clearly an issue. If I didn't like cricket I don't think I'd know the World Cup was on. Look at the impact FTA TV has had on women's football this month.

However, what I have not heard is a criticism of the schedule. I've just worked out that in the 2015 World Cup 24 of the 28 matches were day / night fixtures. In this World Cup, the only D/N fixtures have been on a Saturday. Both semi finals are on a week day and start at 10.30am. They will be finished by 6.30pm BST at the latest. If I am lucky I may be able to watch the last 30 minutes.

The earlier starts and lack of D/N fixtures can only be because the timings suit Indian TV audiences. It's currently 18.40 in Mumbai. Most matches will be finished by 11pm their time. I would guess earlier starts are good for the commercial side of the World Cup (lots of the major sponsors are Indian) but not so good for the health of the game in the UK.

Post by warehamgas on Jul 3, 2019 19:49:13 GMT

I don’t really like it when cricket becomes formulaic but it seems that overall if you win the toss, you bat, get through the first ten overs at 4/5 an over set 290/300+ and bowl well. Do that and you’ll win. Today, England were at 200-2 in the 31st over and were then abysmal for 20 overs yet still won. Thanks to Roy and Bairstow. We got away with it v NZ, we’d probably get away with it against Aus because they don’t bat very deep. Against India it might not be enough with their first three batsmen but 300 is always a score difficult to get, you have to bat well.

Post by irishrover on Jul 5, 2019 12:19:31 GMT

I don’t really like it when cricket becomes formulaic but it seems that overall if you win the toss, you bat, get through the first ten overs at 4/5 an over set 290/300+ and bowl well. Do that and you’ll win. Today, England were at 200-2 in the 31st over and were then abysmal for 20 overs yet still won. Thanks to Roy and Bairstow. We got away with it v NZ, we’d probably get away with it against Aus because they don’t bat very deep. Against India it might not be enough with their first three batsmen but 300 is always a score difficult to get, you have to bat well.

The problem with ODI's is that no matter what you do with the format it will become formulaic because there is clearly an optimum way of playing. The contours of each match in this tournament have been pretty similar with a few notable exceptions like the New Zealand v South Africa match. It's interesting to me that on the whole chasing has been difficult in this tournament. There hasn't really been an iconic chase and that's one of the reason the tournament has been merely good rather than great. It's a great shame the Windies fell just short against New Zealand for many reasons -it really would have injected life into the latter stages if they'd knicked that game at the death. But I think you're right, the story of this tournament has been that 300 is probably enough to win.

It's clearly wide open at this stage. No one looks to have a massive edge but maybe England can feel quietly confident. We've had our wobble and are now locked into to playing 'must win' cricket which can only help in the Semi-Final. We'll have no fear in playing India at Edgbaston again. I still feel like the Aussies have been quite fortunate - could easily have lost games against Windies, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Their batting is definitely vulnerable. England's big advantage is in how deep we bat - no one can match that and it is probably worth 30-40 runs at the end because our players can cut loose. I will find it a bit of a damp squib though if all remaining knock out games are won by the team batting first (in other words won on the toss) but that seems quite likely based on what's happened so far.

Post by warehamgas on Jul 11, 2019 21:03:23 GMT

Should be a very good match. I’m sure England will treat NZ with complete respect. Play their best team without worrying about injuries and NZ have a very good bowling attack, some very obstinate batsmen and in Martin Guptill a player who must get one decent score this World Cup surely. England play to their full potential and they should win, if they don’t they may well lose.Really looking forward to it.

Post by jackthegas on Jul 12, 2019 14:30:26 GMT

We were exceptional yesterday. One of the best days I have had as an English cricket supporter in the 25 years I have been following the team. Right up there with the first day of the boxing day Ashes test in 2011 and some of the memorable days of the '05 Ashes series. There is definitely a bit of momentum behind the tournament now as well. People were watching the game at work on their lunch break and I would imagine there will be a decent TV audience on Sunday.

The way we bossed the clutch moments was extraordinary. The opening spell by our bowlers obviously set the tone, and a combination of Rashid and Archer pegged Australia back when they looked set to recover and post 250. I thought they might target Starc early on. He is a great bowler but he is much more effective at the death. Roy went after Lyon when they brought him into the attack and then destroyed Smith when he was brought on to try and buy a wicket. Bairstow using the review and then Roy being furious when he was given out demonstrated England's determination to not just win, but to annihilate Australia. Root came out and continued to attack and then I liked the way that Morgan and Root just dropped down a gear after we lost both openers. Amazing how a crowd that would most probably have had a very Indian feel to it had Australia topped the group ended up with a very typical Edgbaston feel to it. Credit to the tournament organizers for that one.

As for Sunday, if England play to their potential they will have too much for New Zealand no matter what. Simple as that really. Of course this is sport and England have been known to have a spectacular off day but I just feel that it's their time. England have so many big game players. Neither Stokes or Buttler were needed last time out, in fact, England could have got to the final without Buttler, who is the ultimate big game player. I can't wait!

Post by lostinspace on Jul 15, 2019 7:46:22 GMT

without showing any disrespect to NZ, they are very dependent on Kane Williamson and get him out, which no one has been able to do it will be interesting who steps up. He is fast becoming the player of the tournament and that’s saying something with the innings of lots of players.[wareham gas 24 6 ] Also was a guest at a relatives [not ours]house in Cheddar during the tournament for a bbq

Post by jackthegas on Jul 15, 2019 20:24:17 GMT

Obviously the drama yesterday was incredible. I don't think you will ever see a more dramatic game of cricket than that. To win the game like that was exhilarating.

I thought we were goners a number of times. When Morgan and Root got out having chewed up a number of balls I thought the rate would become a problem.

Buttler did well to keep us in touch but he got out just when he looked like he might be able to take the game away from New Zealand.

I said to my friend, this is done after stokes played out those two dot balls at the start of the last over. The overthrows were a once in a lifetime stroke of good fortune. I'm not a big believer in fate but I mean, that's as close to something being written in the stars as you can get.

The game continued to ebb and flow throughout the super over. It looked both won and lost didn't it. Kudos to Roy and Buttler for instigating the run out under enormous pressure.

Great that the game was on free to air TV but without more regular exposure I find it hard to believe that this can sustain cricket long term. Probably means the hundred has a better chance of succeeding though. Maybe that will provide the longer term sustenance to keep recent converts on board.

I know the game was a classic and I am probably going against the grain here but I thought the pitch was very disappointing. Yes you want a balance between bat and ball but do we really want to go back to playing on pitches where bowlers like de Grandhomme are almost impossible to play? You could squint and almost see Ian Austin waddling in to bowl (a reference for crickets new fans there!) The best thing about playing cricket on good pitches is that it has promoted bowlers that can bowl wrist spin or with raw pace or have fabulous knuckle balls. Benny Howell would have been unplayable on that yesterday. I am all for developing the ball so it swings a bit more but that kind of nibbling, nagging line and length bowler just doesn't do it for me.

To end on a positive this side are the embodiment of multiculturalism and if you'll forgive me for becoming a touch politicised that's probably no bad thing given the current climate. Morgan's comment when asked whether he had the luck of the Irish with them referenced the diversity of the team. Pretty representative of the population with a spectrum of backgrounds and cultures across the team. Moreover, I think they've turned their public persona around. It's not necessarily their job to be good role models but I think they've developed into them.

Post by irishrover on Jul 17, 2019 11:50:51 GMT

Obviously the drama yesterday was incredible. I don't think you will ever see a more dramatic game of cricket than that. To win the game like that was exhilarating.

I thought we were goners a number of times. When Morgan and Root got out having chewed up a number of balls I thought the rate would become a problem.

Buttler did well to keep us in touch but he got out just when he looked like he might be able to take the game away from New Zealand.

I said to my friend, this is done after stokes played out those two dot balls at the start of the last over. The overthrows were a once in a lifetime stroke of good fortune. I'm not a big believer in fate but I mean, that's as close to something being written in the stars as you can get.

The game continued to ebb and flow throughout the super over. It looked both won and lost didn't it. Kudos to Roy and Buttler for instigating the run out under enormous pressure.

Great that the game was on free to air TV but without more regular exposure I find it hard to believe that this can sustain cricket long term. Probably means the hundred has a better chance of succeeding though. Maybe that will provide the longer term sustenance to keep recent converts on board.

I know the game was a classic and I am probably going against the grain here but I thought the pitch was very disappointing. Yes you want a balance between bat and ball but do we really want to go back to playing on pitches where bowlers like de Grandhomme are almost impossible to play? You could squint and almost see Ian Austin waddling in to bowl (a reference for crickets new fans there!) The best thing about playing cricket on good pitches is that it has promoted bowlers that can bowl wrist spin or with raw pace or have fabulous knuckle balls. Benny Howell would have been unplayable on that yesterday. I am all for developing the ball so it swings a bit more but that kind of nibbling, nagging line and length bowler just doesn't do it for me.

To end on a positive this side are the embodiment of multiculturalism and if you'll forgive me for becoming a touch politicised that's probably no bad thing given the current climate. Morgan's comment when asked whether he had the luck of the Irish with them referenced the diversity of the team. Pretty representative of the population with a spectrum of backgrounds and cultures across the team. Moreover, I think they've turned their public persona around. It's not necessarily their job to be good role models but I think they've developed into them.

Agree with all of that sentiment. In the main they come across as thoroughly decent people. I know its easier to do that when you're winning and I'm sure there is a clever PR machine behind them etc. But there's been a notable shift in their engagement with the media - less defensive (those corny TMS ads they all did showed a good level of self-awareness), more willing to wear hearts on their sleeves and admit their own flaws and embracing the idea that they are ambassadors for the game in this country. And yes, I know the Stokes-Hales incident shouldn't be ignored or forgotten and neither should the other moments of drunken nonsense that overshadowed the last Ashes series but there seems a real effort to engage and recognise that they have an evangelising mission to spread the game in a time when it is undoutedly struggling.

None of that ignores the failure of the ECB's overall strategy but it's still nice to see, particularly as someone who grew up with the 90s England team who were both poor interational cricketers and completely boorish (wannabee mini-Botham's who prejected the hyper-blokey/hyper-competitive attitude but with none of the underlying talent, charisma or wit) and then had to endure the Andy Flower era where yes we were excellent but my goodness the players were PR'd within an inch of their lives to never say or do anything remotely interesting - 'we've just got to put it in the right areas'.....'We're trying to execute our plans according to the brand of cricket we are trying to play' etc etc. It's come as a nice surprise to discover that Cook and Anderson actually have quite engaging personalities - they certainly weren't allowed them back then. Makes you wonder who else I've misjudged - are Jonathan Trott and Monty Panesar taking a double act sketch show to the Edinburgh fringe this year?

But yes it's all rather marvellous. England being very good and winning important cricket matches is something I've seen before (though not the World Cup). Even England being World leaders in the game is something I've seen before (though not in ODI's and normally quite briefly). But England both winning, being interesting and playing genuinely exciting innovative and standard setting cricket is not something I've ever seen before and in some ways it's the 'interesting' and 'exciting' bit which is more important than the winning although obviously that matters quite a lot too!

I don't have much to add on the final itself. I thought New Zealand were the better team on the day and didn't get any luck go their way at all. I love the result but I think it was incredibly cruel on New Zealand - richochet to the boundary off Stokes bat was a 1 in 20,000 event, the stepping on the rope when it looked like they'd secured the match winning moment, the bizarre tie breaker rules (I don't agree it should have been a declared a tie but boundaries hit is a ridiculous way of breaking it), even Ross Taylor being triggered what feels like weeks ago now had a massive impact on the game. None of that takes away from the extraordinary efforts of Stokes, Buttler, Archer, Woakes and Plunkett who I think were our match winners on the day with career defining moments for Stokes and Archer (talk about the world at his feet now - blimey!). It's a superb thing for English cricket and on balance, over the tournament, I think you can make a case that we just about deserved to win it but it still doesn't sit particularly well with me. New Zealand put in the most New Zealand performance ever and, in my honest opinion, deserved to win it. I have to admit I am a bit strange-I don't have massively nationalistic leanings when it comes to cricket. I want England to play well and win and they are definitely 'my team' but ultimately (and very much unlike other sports I follow) I think I love the game too much to be invested in one team like that. I'd nearly always rather see a good game that England lose than a bad game they win (Ashes being a huge exception there) and I like to see a 'fair' outcome and I think New Zealand winning that game would have been a fair outcome. Not that I'm complaining that we won because it's great - weird right?!

Overall I think it was a good tournament that will probably (slightly undeservedly) now be remembered as a great one because we won it and it was obviously the best final you could ever hope for. The pitches were not good and I think that's a big reason that there wasn't a single iconic big chase although Brathwaite took the Windies close. The pitches just died as the games wore on. I don't want the Colin De Grandhomme's (superbly as he bowled) taking over again ether. On the other hand the final reinforced my prejudice that low scoring ODI's are much more exciting because the runs and wickets have so much more value than in a 380 plays 360 game. I don't know how you get the balance right on that (or if it's even possible). Watching so many ODI's in a row like that reminded me that whatever they do to the format (raise scoring, lower scoring, favour more attacking cricket with bat and ball etc) there will always be an optimum strategy which the vast majority of teams will follow. This still renders the 50 Over game mechanical and predictable in a way the other 2 formats aren't on the whole. I think one clear problem to me is that the very best batsmen are not sufficiently tested. On the one hand it's great that Williamson, Root, Kohli and Smith dominated the run charts. On the other hand I felt that once they got to 20 that was it - if they wanted 100 it was there for them without really having to work particularly hard for it and show the full range of their skills (not to say they didn't anyway - certainly Williamson did). The only test was if they had support at the other end. Again that's kind of always been the case with this format - its too easy for the very best batsmen and they don't have to particularly shine to deliver the goods. But on the whole it was a very watchable tournament and hopefully can forever erase the memory of the abomination of the 1999 World Cup in England which was a complete disaster bar the Aus-SA semi-final and did much to turn the English cricket watching public off 50 Over cricket.

You can see the ECB's strategy re; The Hundred as a way to keep momentum going post World Cup. I know we're all skeptical about that but it's the only plan on the horizon so for all I hate it I also sincerely hope it's successful in maintaining that interest. They will need the stars though -that's my main worry. Get Kohli, Gayle (in a zimmer frame but still), Williamson, Smith et al. involved and you have something that might work. I'm just not convinced we'll actually have the cash or the appeal to get them - could be a rude awakening for some ECB execs as to our true status in the global game. I don't think the majority of the T20 circus would be that bothered about playing a gimmicky version in England in July unless the money is up there with the Big Bash/IPL (which it won't be) but I might be wrong about that. We all know about the coverage issues and cricket's declining status. I was at a meeting at my club last night where our chairman said that sign-ups for our summer camps in the school holidays (an important revenue stream and source of new junior players) are down by a 3rd from last year despite World Cup. Now that could be coincidence, bad luck, poor marketing on our part etc but we have other measures (ground hires, All Star Junior Cricket taster sessions, number of Juniors) and all of them are down this year. You could argue that perhaps you get the bump from the World Cup next season but it does highlight the current challenges and we are very successful club compared with most having over 120 Juniors and adding a 4th Senior XI this season. So the challenge is turning the World Cup win into something that genuinely boosts grassroots cricket and raises the profile of the clubs -not just for players but also encouraging people to get involved in their local clubs in all kinds of capacities because they are struggling on the whole. It needs to produce a rallying cry - for clubs in a lot of areas this is probably their last chance. The game has to get it right.

Post by warehamgas on Jul 18, 2019 12:32:26 GMT

Not much to add to what you’ve both said. But...1. England were the best team over the length of the competition in my view. We had the strongest batting if you measure it going down the orader. India might say their 1, 2, 3 were stronger but I’d argue that. But once you’ve got to India’s middle order England were far stronger. The Indian opening bowlers were good esp at the death but so was Archer and Starc and Boult and Mohammed Amir. England did have a tricky patch when they were poor but to face the best three teams in their last four matches and having to win all four of the matches and doing so tells me they were a strong side mentally to go with their undoubted cricketing skills. NZ agave us all a lesson of how to lose a match with such class and decorum. Yes they were the better side on Sunday and they had some very bad luck and the Gods smiled on England. But in those very key moments England kept their nerves and perhaps NZ didn’t..... the penultimate ball of Archers over when they took a single Archer had the ball in his hand and refused to shy at the wicket for a possible run out. He didn’t leaving NZ two runs to win. For a young player, fairly inexperienced it was calm decision..... next ball and Roy, who had earlier in the over misfielded, kept his nerve to throw in to Buttler to run out NZ..... Trent Boult had caught the ball just before it went over and he had a fielder near, he had the split second opportunity to throw it in the air, but he didn’t..... last ball of their innings NZ let a ball go without waving his bat at it, it was a free hit but he refused..... on the overthrows, NZ didn’t need to throw the wickets down. All he needed was to keep them to 2. In the circumstances they were unlucky but they really didn’t need to do it..... on the two England runouts Stokes and the players out were on the ball, they realised it was a free run in a sense and the run out wouldn’t matter, as it didn’t.On lots of close decisions England made the right call but I don’t think NZ did and in a close, super over match those close calls were vital.

2. Kane Williamson was wonderful as a captain. He managed a good but not outstanding team ina very good way and used the strengths he had and come the end when they had lost he congratulated England and didn’t bemoan his luck. Like you jack I don’t see cricketers as role models but he and the NZ team showed the perfect way to react when losing a cricket match. They deserve credit for that.

3. Finally because it was an ICC competition the pitches were under the control of the ICC and groundsmen may have different instructions if the ECB were in control in a two or three team series competition. We all expecting several 400+ scores and we didn’t get that we got tracks that worked against England and India imo and it brought the other teams into it more than flat tracks would have done. Having those tracks made it a better, closer competition and didnt let the best teams blast their way to 400.

First 50 over World Cup won by England and it was great to see. Now, I’m just hoping cricket will see another first in the middle of September! 🤞🏽

Post by chewbacca on Jul 18, 2019 12:36:46 GMT

Now that the dust has settled can we agree deciding the final on boundaries is just odd? Surely something else needs to be done? Another Super Over potentially? It kind of seems pointless having a Super Over if there's already something in place that could see a side win...

Post by irishrover on Jul 18, 2019 13:25:41 GMT

Now that the dust has settled can we agree deciding the final on boundaries is just odd? Surely something else needs to be done? Another Super Over potentially? It kind of seems pointless having a Super Over if there's already something in place that could see a side win...

Yes - a deeply unsatisfactory tie breaker for all kind of reasons. I can't see the problem with just having another Super Over if you've decided to go down that route. But overall I would favour scrapping the Super Over idea completely and going with whoever came higher in the round robin table. If you have a structure like that where everyone plays everyone that seems a fair enough way of doing it and, in the event of a tie, rewards the team who performed better over the whole tournament. Has the added advantage of everyone knowing exactly where they stand at the start of the game as well.